Braverman article

[Motorcyclemptiness]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12669741/suella-braverman-says-police-shouldnt-refer-trans-rapists-women.html#socialLinks

Her policies in every other area are so despicable, no interest in reading.

Agree with you on SB MrsSkylerWhite but she's right on this one isn't she?

It's a DM article too!😬

I think I linked something about this in the General Conversations thread from The Times or Telegraph.

SB, in fact most Tories, saying stuff like this is gratifying, in a 'well, duh!' kind of way, and sad, why aren't my party saying this? I want to be able to vote for someone again.

Fenlandia · Today 10:43
**
Agree with you on SB MrsSkylerWhite but she's right on this one isn't she?”

May well be, din’t click on links, but so what? Nothing could persuade me to vote for this vile lot. There are issues that are more important to me.

I am happy to view every statement like this from a politician as a step in the right direction, whatever their party and whatever their other policies, because it's a sign that politicians are recognising that gc views are mainstream, common-sense views that most people hold. That doesn't mean I'll be voting for the Tories, or that I read the Daily Mail.

Given they can't actually successfully prosecute rape in most cases, and even if they manage that, then they cant currently send them to prison given lack of space causing a public safety issue, the naming of rapists seems a bit moot.

This

'Over the last four years, police forces have referred 260 'females' to the CPS to consider a rape charge, according to freedom of information requests by the The Telegraph.'
Another 209 alleged sex attackers have been recorded as an 'unknown' sex, which is thought to include people who identify as non-binary.
Despite the Home Office insisting police should record the biological sex, it remains voluntary guidance and is down to each force.'

But... if it's rape, it's a man. By definition, under English law, as I understand it. No rapist should ever be defined as female.

Braverman is highlighting two things here. Just how rotten the system is, with 260 "female" rapists (and we know that's the tip of the iceberg for "female" violence, multiply by 100, 1000 etc).

And two, that when with her full attention, and direct orders given, the police force are so captured that her direct instructions are ignored, avoided, obfuscated, put in a queue.

The ultimate irony. The Conservative Party that after several years of mounting concerns and evidence pointing to institutional capture and failings within the professional managerial classes running the police, NHS, prisons, schools, civil service etc, are only now acting directly...with less than 12 months to an election when the new government will be in lockstep with these progessive forces.

Imagine this momentum starting even 18-24 months earlier, there would have been scope to turn things around.

I can genuinely see the terrain of the next GE bring hugely over these areas. The Tories will point to their ramping up campaign on these issues (Braverman here, Keegan on transparency of RSE materials, their decision not to go for a trans conversion ban), comparing to Labour who are reluctant to upset the intersectional apple cart.

Will it work for them? Well, this and the professional Left's pronouncements since the raids into Israel on Oct 7th mean I can't trust anything the Left say. The Tories applying themselves, however weakly, for the first time to stilling this policy drift, secures my vote.

Saying it is a bit moot to call a man a woman or female is part and parcel of the TRA agenda: it is only polite to use preferred pronouns, we only want to pee, it never happens, there are more important things you should worry your silly little heads about…

I don't know if anyone read this in Unherd, but it made me think of the problems the Tories have been having around captured institutions and GI.

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-civil-service-is-thwarting-the-government-over-israel/

And for added cosmically crazy effect, we want the completing of women's rights, from women getting the vote...to women, in vast numbers, being guilty of rape.

I mean if it's good enough for men, it's good enough for, um, women.

Hang on...

I think they have a problem generally with this

Perhaps the Home Secretary could focus on improving the situation at the hugely underperforming department for which she is responsible, rather than having photoshoots and making statements of the bloody obvious.

On the DM article i haven’t read that either but keep going whoever wants to state biological realities

The definition of rape from the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

*Rape
1Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.*

Note that the only pronouns used are "he" and "his".

Rape is only committed by men.

That's a bit of a stretch from what was actually posted.
I think bombs point was that if you are locking up barely any rapists, accurately referring to their sex is irrelevant really.

I agree. Would much rather see her focusing on dealing with rape, the broken court system and the broken asylum system, than fiddling around telling the police to call rapists "he" and launching expensive and ineffective deportation schemes.

You don’t have to agree with all the opinions someone has to agree with some of the opinions that person has.

But... if it's rape, it's a man. By definition, under English law, as I understand it. No rapist should ever be defined as female.

The rapist himself must be male, but it's possible to be convicted for rape along with a man if you have an active role in the rape as a woman. The TRAs would have us believe all these "female" rape cases are this, which is patent bollocks.

The most recent example of a woman being convicted of rape as a second party that I could find was in 2001.

So what you are saying is as very few rapists actually get locked up it doesn’t matter if we have to pretend it is a female crime, that women are at risk of rape from other women as well as men so no need for single sex spaces, that forcing women to refer to their rapist as ‘she’ is also ok?

…And that it is ok to give a false description of a rapist so women cannot protect themselves from him?

No. I can't speak for bomb but what I'm saying is I'd rather Braverman gave the police the support they need to prosecute rapists, than she lectured them about what they (and we) already know, which is they have penises.

Hi Adam, can we rely on you to provide similar words of disdain on Labour when they struggle to reduce MVAW, despite their declared intent to reduce it by half, especially when the figures on rapes and assaults against women by other "women", newly declared "women" skyrockets, which it will do when Labour govt policy will align 100% with the intersectional elites who are driving this current social revolution?